Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

Nikos Papastergiadis speaks at the DiEM25 strategic meeting. arno-image. CC.In the context of growing
frustration over the techno-financial determinism in the
European political landscape that has cast veil upon veil over executive
functions and facilitated the normalization of neo-liberal regimes, a new
cosmopolitical movement was launched in Berlin – DiEM 25.

This movement provides us with
a platform to rethink both the priorities of transnational systems of
government and the possibilities for widening the frameworks for social
emancipation. It is also a crucial moment to reflect on the existing cultural
landscape and propose alternative ways for organizing cultural relations.

The
European Union began as an economic project that sought political agreement.
The idea of shared cultural interests was always in the background but too
often just left behind as an afterthought. Leaving culture to the last is a
mistake that Europe cannot afford to repeat. At the heart of the
democratization of Europe is the recognition of both the diversity of cultures
and the positive force of cultural interaction.

The question of culture in
Europe is often posed in the framework of the preservation of national heritage
and the facilitation of exchange between discrete cultural entities. The
prevailing cultural anxieties in Europe are the threats associated with
cultural segregation. This approach overlooks fundamental contradictions in the
dynamics of mobility and immobility.

Two
scenarios

Let us consider two kinds of
scenarios.

In the suburbs of Paris, the derelict
streets in central Athens and the camps near Calais, there are people who are
trapped. They cannot move. To many people from the outside they live in No Go
zones, but for those on the inside these places are also No Go Out zones. Young
people are forging baffling identities and producing disturbing images of their
sense of belonging to this ‘no mans land’. Children of immigrants declare: “I
don’t belong here and I have not come from anywhere else.” Protestors in the
heat of fire and accusations pronounce: “I am a dog! I bite at anything.” A boy
is asked about his future and he reveals that: “I want to become a migrant.”
They are stuck and they dream of movement. They see cages and become animal.
They do not feel as if they are segregated. Such a fate presumes separation
with the possibility of passage and interconnection. On the contrary they see
themselves as merely existing in limbo and the dominant self-image is that of a
zombie. These are people who can see that they in Europe but they are neither
from nor of Europe.

By contrast there are the
images that emphasize the hyper-diversity and mobility that is shaping Europe.
Artists are increasingly moving from festival to biennale. Community groups may
establish themselves in local neighborhoods but they also have extensive diasporic
networks for collaboration and transnational distribution systems. In everyday
settings migrants enjoy the benefits of civic participation and cross-cultural
interaction. For instance, in the UK, migrants show above average rates in
out-marriage, charitable donations, neighborly relations and upward residential
mobility. These are not people who suffer from segregation. They are on the
move and happy to be in the flow.

Multiculturalism

What sort of framework can
make sense of these contradictions? Does this current predicament fit with the
prevailing cultural visions of Europe? Multiculturalism has been a
key heading for administering these principles. However, multiculturalism was
designed in response to the post second world war patterns of migration. During
this period assimilationist policies were weak and the agency of the migrants
was more vigorous. It also occurred at the time when diversity was promoted as
an ideal that could enhance and strengthen society.

Multiculturalism
was proposed as a solution to the question of how different people can co-exist
in the nation state. In the UK, France and Germany almost every political
leader in Europe has attacked multiculturalism as if it was the cause for
social polarization and cultural disengagement. We hear calls that hark back
towards the idylls of a unified nation: one that has at its centre either
‘muscular liberalism’, a ‘defiant republicanism’, or the rebirth of
‘lietkultur’. Cultural commentators have also warned of the dangers of a
looming “civic deficit” and the perils of “sleep walking into segregation”.

With
the outburst of terrorist attacks ethnic ghettoes were targeted as the hotspots
for ‘grooming’ disaffected youth. The new consensus from the centre-right is
that multiculturalism is no longer a practical source of mutual benefit and a
pragmatic political compromise that secured social cohesion, but is at best, a
utopian ideal that was gifted to ungrateful minorities who exploited it to gain
unfair advantages, and at worst, a divisive ideology with which the ‘enemies of
Europe’ can abuse the hospitality of their hosts.

Discussion at the DiEM25 strategic meetings. arno-image. CC.

A world of complexity

These
simplistic political slogans and crude commentaries will not work in a world of
complexity. They not only fail to capture the productive forces that arise from
the mingling of people and the mixing of ideas, but ignore the wider stories of
harmonious co-existence, cultural stimulus and civic participation. In
retrospect the challenges that multiculturalism was designed to face seem
simple. Within a few decades the world has changed dramatically. The turbulence
of mobilities and the speed of communication have made the sense of belonging
more complex.

People
now claim to have multiple identities, and are affiliated with transnational
networks. It is now more common to feel connected to, and be part of different
and disparate communities. In this globalizing world the scope of belonging and
the forms of attachment have changed dramatically. Hence, multiculturalism no
longer looks like it is the solution to all the questions that come about when all
these different people live together. In this context where some people are
stuck in a no-mans land and others are bypassing national boundaries, the brief
political consensus on multiculturalism has also cracked.

The solution cannot be found
in either smearing multiculturalism, or defending it. The future of the
cultural sphere does not resemble a multicultural mosaic that emits vibrancy in
its assemblage of diverse parts. The multiple cultures that are already here in
Europe are not simply seeking a place within an existing framework. The
cultures that are in here are also out there.

Transversality

These cultures of Europe are
not contained within national boundaries, and often extend beyond the region. This
cultural sphere is transversal. It is networked across horizontal transnational
nodes. Hence we should not join in the claims over the demise of
multiculturalism, and make further assimilatory demands through the policy
framework of interculturalism, but address the existence of transculturalism.

It is clear that the trend
towards polarization and conflict, and the broader anxiety of disintegration
will only exacerbate if there is no overarching system for bringing people
together, and no system is sustainable without common beliefs and shared
values. This call for solidarity is often expressed as a summons to define
explicit symbols and codes that will enable the people to enter into dialogue.

In the past it was assumed
that Europe possessed such a singular pool of culture. The pool was composed of
the heritages and influenced by perspectives developed in distinct national
contexts. By aggregating the treasures from each national culture a new
European culture was to be forged.

This mechanism of cultural
aggregation is fraught with two fundamental problems. The presumption of a
singular culture constrained and excluded many minority viewpoints from the
dialogue of what is to be shared, and how the sharing would be conducted.
Cultural solidarity was also underpinned by the worthy political ambition of
consensus. However, culture thrives on difference, speculation, query and
disagreement. In short, the imagination, as opposed to deliberation, does not
rest at a shared point of convergence, but is restless and forever probing the
boundaries of the possible and striving to examine the other side. Creativity
and cultural innovation does not always come from within, it spreads out and
across. The contemporary cultural spheres are increasingly transversal.

Peripheries

The contradictions of
mobility and immobility in culture are not all resolved by the concept of
transculturalism. Yet, the paradox of movement in culture tightens when we
consider the sites of cultural production. The density of cultural productivity
does not concentrate itself within the metropolitan centres. Gentrification and
corporate culture has eviscerated these sites. The focus point has shifted from
the central part of Paris and London to the peri-urban rings and satellite
cities. The pulse of cultural productivity no longer rings louder in the
centre, but is dispersed around the peripheries, and paradoxically this
location is often adjacent to those who feel stuck.

To keep pace with these
changes we need to shift our orientation towards culture. The push towards
closer cultural integration through the superimposition of a singular cultural
system is counter-productive.

The future of European
culture is neither an aggregation of multiple cultures into a hierarchical
order, and clearly, the sometimes celebrated fantasy and now much-reviled
relativist vision of all cultures simply having their day in the sun is never
going to happen.

Something else is happening
and a new discourse is necessary. Cultural vitality is not measured by the
volume of aesthetic objects on display in a museum, it is best seen through the
habits of thought, the manner in which connections are made, the organization
of signs to make a comprehensible worldview. This method of conducting dialogue
and organizing ideas is now occurring in specific locales and across a wide
field. If there is a future for European culture, then it may exist in the way
Europeans coordinate these regional and trans-national dialogues in meaningful
ways.

Migrants
have been at the forefront of re-invigorating everything from street culture to
charity giving. The youth are adopting and adapting globalizing mechanisms that
increasingly bypass the state institutions, producing new transnational
networks, stimulating cultural hybridity and creating forms of belonging that
confound the politicians.

Thus
the next step is not an inward retreat, but requires an outward vision that can
embrace the robust forms of cultural interplay that are happening in a myriad
of local settings. The multiculturalism from below, and in particular, the
vitality of cross-cultural exchanges that are occurring in the peripheries of
metropolitan spaces, is a force that needs to be at the centre of European democracy.

This article is adapted from the talk I gave at the strategic meetings prior to the launch of DiEM25 in Berlin, on 9 February 2016.

Comments

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.